Road safety

Cover of Pedestrian-Cyclist Conflict Minimisation on Shared Paths and Footpaths
Pedestrian-Cyclist Conflict Minimisation on Shared Paths and Footpaths
  • Publication no: AP-R287-06
  • ISBN: 1 921139 37 4
  • Published: 30 May 2006

The interaction between pedestrians and cyclists is increasingly causing safety concerns, exacerbated by the use of wheeled recreational devices, including wheelchairs, powered scooters and gophers. Some of these concerns are real and others are perceived, but nevertheless important in terms of people's willingness to walk. The more governments are successful in increasing the amounts of walking and cycling, the greater these concerns will become - potentially limiting the extent and sustainability of such gains. This report investigates actual and potential conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians and develops strategies to minimise conflict and to improve both perceived and actual safety on shared paths and footpaths. These issues and ways of addressing them were identified in consultation with both pedestrian and bicycle stakeholders, to ensure that the outcomes reflected a balanced view of pedestrian-cyclist interaction.

  • AP-R287/06 Pedestrian-Cyclist Conflict Minimisation on Shared Paths and Footpaths
  • SUMMARY
  • CONTENTS
  • TABLES
  • FIGURES
  • 1. INTRODUCTION
  • 2. LITERATURE REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST ISSUES
    • 2.1. Reasons for walking/cycling
    • 2.2. On-road vs off-road provision for cyclists
    • 2.3. Integration of cyclists and pedestrians
      • 2.3.1. Cyclists
      • 2.3.2. Pedestrians
      • 2.3.3. Types of Paths
    • 2.4. Appreciation of conflict
    • 2.5. Perceptions of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians
      • 2.5.1. UK Countryside Agency
      • 2.5.2. User perceptions of the quality of service on shared paths
    • 2.6. Conflict Issues
      • 2.6.1. Inappropriate user behaviour
      • 2.6.2. Poor path design
      • 2.6.3. Poor path location
      • 2.6.4. Poor path maintenance
      • 2.6.5. Other issues
  • 3. CONSULTATIONS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS
    • 3.1. Conflict issues
      • 3.1.1. Inappropriate user behaviour
      • 3.1.2. Poor path design
      • 3.1.3. Poor path location
      • 3.1.4. Poor path maintenance
      • 3.1.5. Other issues
  • 4. CURRENT BICYCLE AND WALKING STRATEGIES
    • 4.1. Transport strategies
    • 4.2. Bicycle and walking strategies and plans
  • 5. CURRENT PRACTICE IN AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND ANDOTHER OVERSEAS COUNTRIES
    • 5.1. Existing guidelines and practice in Australia and New Zealand
      • 5.1.1. Austroads guide to traffic engineering practice
      • 5.1.2. Other Austroads documents
      • 5.1.3. State/Territory guidelines
      • 5.1.4. New Zealand guidelines
    • 5.2. Existing traffic and user regulations in Australia and New Zealand
      • 5.2.1. Australian road rules
      • 5.2.2. New South Wales
      • 5.2.3. Victoria
      • 5.2.4. Queensland
      • 5.2.5. Western Australia
      • 5.2.6. South Australia
      • 5.2.7. Tasmania
      • 5.2.8. Australian Capital Territory
      • 5.2.9. Northern Territory
      • 5.2.10. New Zealand
    • 5.3. Existing guidelines and practice overseas
      • 5.3.1. Denmark
      • 5.3.2. Ireland
      • 5.3.3. United Kingdom
      • 5.3.4. United States
  • 6. KEY ISSUES
  • 7. KEY OPTIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST CONFLICTMINIMISATION
    • 7.1. Principles
    • 7.2. Key strategies
  • 8. DEVELOPING THE TOOLKIT
    • 8.1. Issues and options
    • 8.2. Outline specification for toolkit
  • 9. ASSESSMENT OF KEY OPTIONS
    • 9.1. User and key stakeholder responses to options
      • 9.1.1. Options less likely to be effective
      • 9.1.2. Additional items for inclusion in the options
      • 9.1.3. Other comments
    • 9.2. How well are the issues addressed?
  • REFERENCES
  • APPENDIX A SURVEY FORM
  • APPENDIX B DETAILED REVIEW OF AUSTROADS GUIDETO TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PRACTICE,PART 13 – PEDESTRIANS ANDPART 14 – BICYCLES
  • INFORMATION RETRIEVAL